|
The Belinda Bounce (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
Who the hell cares about benefitting the poor? I care about what benefits me, and that's all anybody should care about. I'm not talking about handouts - I'm talking about freedom and my right to hold onto my own property.
For the record, I would like to see an income tax cut MUCH more than a GST reduction. However, this debate is incredibly pointless because Martin is not going to follow through on his promise (at least not without raising taxes somewhere else), and anybody with half a brain should know that. |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ some of us care about other people too though ;)
I know what you mean though. I guess I figure that I'm *relatively* immune to whatever any gov't decides, so I'm ok with other people benefiting a bit more than me in any proposed cuts.
I'd honestly rather see a budget where the "greater good" and the less fortunate are the main focal points (i.e. getting people off of welfare, EI, etc). |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I'm all for helping the less fortunate, but I'm not for helping the less motivated, and until we come up with an airtight system for differentiating between the two, I won't support any initiative that claims to benefit the former group.
In reality, the size of the "less fortunate" group and the amount of money needed to get them back on their feet is 1% of what we pay, if that. The war on poverty started over 40 years ago and yet somehow, the more we spend on it, the more poverty seems to be winning.
The best possible thing for the "greater good", proven time and time again, is the freedom to make one's own choices. Choices about what education to pursue, where to work, what to do with one's income, and how and to what extent one should care for the "less fortunate". It may not be a perfect system, but it's the best that's ever been seen in practice.
Also, unless you make a pile of money, you're not immune to the effects of income tax. People in this country may be accustomed to it but that does not make them immune. Think "cost of government day" - we work for over 8 months of the year in Canada just to cover the tax burden imposed on us. You want to care for the poor? How about the working poor! |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
income tax cuts benefit everyone and they can be tailored more to the people who need it most (ie. reduce it for lower income brackets).
...
Income tax cuts put money back into an employee's pocket *right away*...it doesn't require them to spend in order to save. |
...which is why income tax cuts will be part of the Conservative platform (along with the GST cut, dividend tax cut, tax credits, etc.). --> a balanced approach |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by AwakenedAddict
Seriously Jay, I wouldn't have expected such an ignorant and outrageous claim from you. But now I'm prepared. Let the stupidity flow! |
I suggest you seek alternate news sources. This was a massive story 6 weeks ago, yet you don't seem to be aware of it.
White males need not apply
Internal e-mail reveals hiring ban at Public Works
Tom Blackwell
National Post
Saturday, November 19, 2005
A major federal department has temporarily banned the hiring of able-bodied white men in an unusual move critics say could spark a backlash against the very disadvantaged groups it is meant to help.
Managers in the Public Works department must hire only visible minorities, women, aboriginals and the disabled, except with written permission from their superiors, David Marshall, the deputy minister, ordered in an e-mail circulated yesterday.
The policy, designed to address shortfalls in the department's employment-equity goals, will last at least until the end of next March and be reviewed then, the memo said.
"As executives and managers, our role includes ensuring that the public service is representative," Mr. Marshall said in the memo. "This involves providing direction and leadership by example, and demonstrating a firm commitment to an inclusive workplace."
Pierre Teotonio, a department spokesman, said last night the order was prompted in part by a precipitous drop in the number of employees hired from the designated groups this year. The proportion of female, disabled, aboriginal and non-white new hires fell from one in eight this March to only one in 20 by September, he said. The federal benchmark just for the hiring of visible minorities is one in five.
Still, a veteran labour lawyer said yesterday he had never heard of an edict actually barring the recruitment of large numbers of people. And even a federal civil service union that strongly supports employment equity questioned the wisdom of the policy.
"I think it's creating a possible backlash against equity groups and then it's not helping these people to get into government," said Nycole Turmel, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
"It's even creating more frustration or anger from the workforce as well as from the population ... I am quite sure the people they hire will be competent and good employees, but that is not the point here. They will be seen as targets, and then people will question their hiring, and I don't think it will help them."
She also charged that many of those hired over the next few months may well be laid off once the department reaches its targets by the end of the fiscal year in March.
Ms. Turmel said a more effective strategy would be simply to encourage managers to consider members of the designated groups, and provide help to those people to find work in the federal government.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does allow some discrimination by government to aid groups it identifies as being disadvantaged, said Robb Macpherson, a labour lawyer with the firm McCarthy Tetrault.
However, that usually means implementing equity programs that promote the hiring of qualified people from those groups. The Public Works order appears to take the idea a step further, he said. "They are in effect cutting off a significant portion of the workforce from these opportunities," Mr. Macpherson said. "It sounds like a pretty extreme measure that they're contemplating."
Federal statistics for 2003-04 show that the representation of women, aboriginal people and the disabled in the government was actually greater than in the Canadian workforce as a whole. But the percentage of visible minorities -- 7.8% -- was less than the 10.4% in the overall workforce.
Mr. Teotonio said the move was taken as part of the department's efforts under the six-year-old "Embracing Change" program, designed to bring more members of visible minorities into the federal government.
The percentage of visible minorities and the three other designated groups hired by Public Works over the past year dropped in part because there was relatively little recruitment of any kind, he said.
"All persons recruited externally must be from designated groups (persons who are visible minorities, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and women), except for cases having received ADM/CEO written approval," the memo said.
"This measure will be in force until March 31, 2006, at which time we will re-assess our progress." |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by AwakenedAddict
For that to be possible the percentage increase in consumption would have to equal to the decrease in taxes. For tax-generated revenue to remain the same after the 2% proposed GST tax, actual consumption spending would have to increase by 40%.
HARDLY LIKELY AT ALL --> moot point #1 on Jay's part
i said that its not likely but there is no doubt that it would help to pay for itself if comsumption increases.
The tax cuts are aimed at lower/middle income families. However, in order to be fair, upper-income citizens were also given tax breaks, to a lesser degree.
Moot point #2 on Jay's part
they sure were but as i said, the people WITH NO INCOME SUCH AS THOSE ON ASSISTANCE OF ANY SORT WONT BENEFIT FROM AN ICOME TAX CUT
I don't vote for Paul Martin, I vote for the candidate in my riding. There is no direct election of the PM, why are you acting like there is? Ohh that's right, again with the powers of persuation. Feed people enough , and they might begin to like it after a while.
Moot point #3 on Jay's part.
indirectly we vote for the prime minister. We have the option of voting for the party (prime minister) or the candidate depending on which point of view we wish to see it from. |
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by AwakenedAddict
Seriously Jay, I wouldn't have expected such an ignorant and outrageous claim from you. But now I'm prepared. Let the stupidity flow! |
do you know any white guys who have applied for a government job lately?
Well i do... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
people are talking about an income tax cut like its a yearly windfall.
Well guess what? You will see it little by little on each paycheque just as you would with the GST. Except with the GST youd actually notice it moreso because you can relate the numbers a little easier than an income tax column on your biweekly paycheque. You will also notice it almost EVERY TIME you buy something. |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^ you're subscribing to perception over reality? So it's better to consciously notice a bit of savings vs. *actually receiving* more savings?
That strikes me as rather silly.
The gov't ought to simply put as much money as prudently possible back into people's pockets and leave the responsibility of managing and "noticing" that money to the people themselves.
Also, for the poor or lower class, isn't the bulk of their expenses likely to be shelter costs such as rent? Shaving 2% off the GST doesn't really affect that expense, does it? |
|
|
| AwakenedAddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
I suggest you seek alternate news sources. This was a massive story 6 weeks ago, yet you don't seem to be aware of it.
White males need not apply
Internal e-mail reveals hiring ban at Public Works
Tom Blackwell
National Post
Saturday, November 19, 2005 |
1) The National Post hardly qualifies as an alternative news source. I prefer reality separated from rhetoric, thank you.
2) What makes this story so "massive" again? It's JUST SO MASSIVE, it's not on the agenda 4 weeks later....
3) The article states nothing about "state sponsored reacism", however, it does mention the declining diversity of the government's newly hired employees (1 in 20, instead of 1 in 5 being an ethnic minority) and the method by which they are rectifying this situation (hiring qualified members of non-white ethnic groups). This hardly amounts to state sponsored racism. Considering the fact that white people are targeted to comprise 80% of the total Public Works' workforce anyhow. However, please continue to make sensationalist claims that play on the emotions of the electorate, despite the fact that this type of reporting is despiseable, not to mention deliberately misleading. |
|
|
| AwakenedAddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I'm all for helping the less fortunate, but I'm not for helping the less motivated, and until we come up with an airtight system for differentiating between the two, I won't support any initiative that claims to benefit the former group. |
I used to think along the same vein. However, I figure that the social cost of not helping the less motivated is greater than the fiscal cost of helping them. If you don't help people at all, they will turn to drugs and alcohol and probably will end up living the street. The urban landscape will swell with the ranks of the poor and sick and degrade the quality of living in Canada's cities. I'd rather feed and clothe these people and provide them shelter, and get them off the street and healthy.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
You want to care for the poor? How about the working poor! |
Hahah, yes. But I think our definitions of "working poor" are slightly dissimilar. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by AwakenedAddict
1) The National Post hardly qualifies as an alternative news source. I prefer reality separated from rhetoric, thank you.
2) What makes this story so "massive" again? It's JUST SO MASSIVE, it's not on the agenda 4 weeks later....
3) The article states nothing about "state sponsored reacism", however, it does mention the declining diversity of the government's newly hired employees (1 in 20, instead of 1 in 5 being an ethnic minority) and the method by which they are rectifying this situation (hiring qualified members of non-white ethnic groups). This hardly amounts to state sponsored racism. Considering the fact that white people are targeted to comprise 80% of the total Public Works' workforce anyhow. However, please continue to make sensationalist claims that play on the emotions of the electorate, despite the fact that this type of reporting is despiseable, not to mention deliberately misleading. |
Banning the hiring of white men IS state sponsored racism. Last time i checked, discriminating against someone due to their race was the definition of racism. |
|
|
|
|
